Monday, November 19, 2018

Warren Co Man Charged With Poaching From The Road

illegally taken doe New York State Environmental Conservation Officer Sean Dewey reported he received a call on the evening of October 31, 2018 by someone saying a subject had just shot a deer from the road in Horicon, Warren County.

ECO Dewey reported that upon his arrival at the scene, he identified the suspect after interviewing nearby homeowners. Dewey and ECO Maxwell Nicols, reported the deer was shot with a rifle from the defendant’s pickup truck using a spotlight.

Tickets were issued for illegally taking the deer with the aid of a light, unlawfully taking an antlerless deer, possessing a loaded gun in a motor vehicle, and discharging the firearm from the roadway. The deer was confiscated.

Photo of taken doe provided by DEC.

Related Stories


Editorial Staff

Stories under the Almanack's Editorial Staff byline come from press releases and other notices. To have your news noticed here at the Almanack contact our editor John Warren at adkalmanack@gmail.com.




40 Responses

  1. Ethan says:

    Is it a DEC policy to not release the names of hunters who breake the law? I’ve noticed this a lot lately.

    • John Warren John Warren says:

      Correct. They’ve done these for many years and never identify the perps. DEC has always been focused on defending hunting culture, so it’s not much of a surprise to me. Still, given our limited resources, I think it’s important that we report these in this way anyway.

      John Warren
      Founder & Editor
      Adirondack Almanack

      • Justin Farrell says:

        Same with fishing poachers & other regulation violators… DEC never mentions the perp’s name, but is always sure to mention the enforcer’s name.

      • adirondackjoe says:

        John, ‘the DEC has always focused on defending the hunting culture’ is kind of like calling a bank robber a costumer isnt it? The fact that he shot an illegal deer does not make him a hunter it makes him a criminal.

        • John Warren John Warren says:

          It makes him both, if he’s actually convicted.

          • adirondackjoe says:

            So shooting an illegal deer makes him a ‘ hunter? ‘ where do you draw that line? Does he have a license? Would that make a difference if he did or not? No offense, just asking.

            • adkDreamer says:

              There is no such thing as an illegal deer.

              • adirondackjoe says:

                Sorry. What I should have said if he takes a deer illegally. My bad. I THINK you know that.

                • adkDreamer says:

                  True. So true. This site and its forum, being an entertainment and social media site for all things Adirondack, gives me great pleasure in reading the darndest things folks write and comment about.

            • John Warren John Warren says:

              Did he hunt the deer or not? Of course he did. He just did it illegally from a car (supposing he did the crime of course). A bank employee who embezzles is still a bank employee, and also an embezzler.

              • adkDreamer says:

                That’s right. Hunter and alleged poacher. He may also be poor and also a Dad trying to get some real food for his family as opposed to the pseudo-meat they sell in the grocery stores. We don’t know his/her situation.

                We don’t know much of any of the facts.

              • Boreas says:

                Just my opinion, but I don’t believe shooting game from a vehicle should be considered hunting, since it is an illegal activity. Just like using feed piles and shooting animals out of your sliding glass door. ‘Harvesting’ perhaps, but not hunting. Hunting is a sport, harvesting is not. The above activities are generally considered unsportsmanlike, just like dynamiting fish in a lake. If I am driving around with a rifle on my rack, see a deer on the road or in a field and shoot it, I didn’t hunt for it. I just killed it.

    • Boreas says:

      Poachers, not hunters….

    • Boreas says:

      I wonder if the firearm was confiscated as well. I doubt it.

      • Paul says:

        I am sure it was.

        • adkDreamer says:

          These types of hunting violations are classified as misdemeaners and generally result in: a ticket, potential fines of $200-$2,000, and potential jail time of 15 days to 1 year. There is no mention of confiscation of firearms for these types of hunting violations in the record.

          • Paul says:

            The DEC takes firearms even during non-criminal accident investigations. I would be surprised that they didn’t take that piece of evidence (giving the accused the opportunity to compromise it) as part of the investigation.

            • adkDreamer says:

              I cannot find that in the law record. Can you provide the statute/law reference?

              • Paul says:

                That isn’t part of the statute. This is part of any normal criminal investigation. The alleged crime was committed with the gun. Law enforcement is not going to let you keep the evidence during the investigation. As long as there is sufficient evidence of a crime (like you have here) laws pertaining to evidence (you can look those up) allow law enforcement to take any relevant evidence into custody. And they will, and I am sure did, in this case.

                • Boreas says:

                  I was always under the impression that if a poacher was caught IN THE ACT by enforcement, they confiscated the firearm used and the hunting license until after a court date or something. Then it was up to the judge as to what, if, and when to return. It seems this man was caught after the fact by a tip, so the procedure may be different. I think this started back when poachers were just as likely to shoot the warden as an illegal deer. Just my impression, though. I may be thinking about how they did things in PA when I lived there.

  2. Curt Austin says:

    My neighbor told me this story –

    He sees a truck parked in his long driveway one evening, which overlooks some apple trees illuminated by the truck’s headlights. He goes out to chase them away. He calls the town justice (our mutual neighbor), and says he thinks he knows who they are. The justice says “Oh, I know who they are.” The matter is dealt with, ex officio.

    That’s the culture of poaching in a small town. Obviously, not our most brilliant citizens.

    • Boreas says:

      Curt,

      I think that culture needs to change. If I was arrested for stealing 50 pounds of meat from a store, or stealing my neighbor’s pig, it would quickly be a matter of public record. Shame and humiliation are excellent deterrents and shouldn’t be overlooked as a tool of environmental enforcement. An anonymous citation and small fine for poaching just greases the revolving door.

      • oswegatchie says:

        I couldn’t agree more. Poaching is theft, pure and simple, and the violators have no right to anonymity, whereas the public has a right to expect law enforcement to use whatever legal means are available to prevent the crimes.

        • adkDreamer says:

          From correspondence 10/5/2018:

          “It is the Department of Environmental Conservation’s policy to not include the names of the subjects of any our searches, rescues, investigations, or arrests.”

          David Winchell
          Public Outreach, Region 5
          New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
          P.O. Box 296, 1115 State Route 86, Ray Brook, NY, 12977-0296
          P: 518-897-1248 | F: 518-897-1394 | David.Winchell@dec.ny.gov

          http://www.dec.ny.gov

        • adkDreamer says:

          There is no law that mandates the publishing or redaction of the name(s) of an alleged tort or criminal violator.

          From correspondence 10/5/2018:

          “It is the Department of Environmental Conservation’s policy to not include the names of the subjects of any our searches, rescues, investigations, or arrests.”

          Public Outreach, Region 5
          New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
          P.O. Box 296, 1115 State Route 86, Ray Brook, NY, 12977-0296

        • Paul says:

          Their names will become public record as part of the trial and certainly if and when there is a conviction. Too may people these days assume guilt with any accusation. If it’s online he our she is guilty!

      • adkDreamer says:

        Remember: An arrest is not a conviction. An arrest is a detention and/or preliminary procedure used against an alleged violator of an alleged crime. If the case that the arresting officer alleges goes to court, then anyone in the public can simply attend the court proceedings to find out who is the alleged violator, in most cases.
        It appears in today’s culture (media, et. al.) there is a very weird interest in declaring an alleged violator guilty before due process is served. As far as I am aware in this country, a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. For this reason I believe it would be disingenuous and potentially libelous to print the names of the alleged violators.

        • Luke says:

          Following your reasoning, if someone is arrested for robbing a bank, the article describing his/her arrest should not contain their name.
          Do you think it would be potentially libelous for police departments to name the individual arrested before they are tried? Seriously?

          I think this is the worst policy of DEC, and I asked the new head of the enforcement unit to comment on it. Crickets.

          • adkDreamer says:

            Well, that is not what I said. What I did say is there is no law that mandates the publishing or redaction of the name(s) of an alleged tort or criminal violator; that the law is silent on the issue of providing names to the media. Again, this is not my personal reasoning. To answer your rhetorical question, I believe that with probable cause, prima facia evidence, et. al. a police department will publish names – as the likelihood of conviction is so great. If the police department has any doubt regarding an arrest, I can assure you they will make every attempt to bury it.

            • Luke says:

              Actually, it IS what you said: “For this reason I believe it would be disingenuous and potentially libelous to print the names of the alleged violators.”
              And police departments release the names all the time of people they believe are involved in a crime, but there is no solid evidence trail connecting them. They are called “persons of interest”, and they are identified.

              • adkDreamer says:

                What I say and what the DEC police say are not the same thing – I have no idea why the DEC Police do not print names.

                I believe it to be potentially libelous, however I have no idea what the DEC police think.

  3. Charlie S says:

    “Poaching is theft, pure and simple, and the violators have no right to anonymity..”

    They do have anonymity, yet some person gets arrested for something more serious and before he or she even goes to court and is found guilty, which oftentimes is not the case, their photos are splayed in the newspapers for all the world to see. Public humiliation, their reputations and character’s assassinated, without even a trial yet taking place.This ought to be against the law! Poachers caught red-handed and no photos in the papers. A double standard. Wildlife is not important!

    • Paul says:

      Don’t you think in all cases they should be given as much anonymity as possible just for the reasons you gave? You describe why it is wrong and then say they should do it the wrong way too? Interesting.

      • adkDreamer says:

        More rhetorical questioning, however all I am pointing out is that there is some risk in publishing names however slight or great. It matters little what I think as the law is silent on names publication. It is up to the Dept. how they handle publishing names in any given situation.

    • Boreas says:

      I wonder what happens if a Trooper/Sheriff catches someone poaching or some other wildlife infraction. Do they just detain the person until a DEC officer arrives? Do they release names – like in a police blotter? Just curious.

  4. Boreas says:

    I don’t have a big issue with DEC holding back names and information in in environmental offenses as long as public safety is not involved – WITH ONE CAVEAT – the information DOES need to be released and reported when the case is closed. This would include names, offenses, pleas, judgements, and disposition. If DEC posted this info on their website and made it available to media, it may go a long way toward reducing poaching, illegal dumping, and other similar offenses.

    I believe DEC is very thorough in their investigation PRIOR to issuing citations, and it would be relatively rare that someone is nabbed that isn’t guilty. If there is much doubt, the perpetrator would likely not be cited – just warned. If a conviction for poaching or other violation amounts to nothing more than a fine, it isn’t likely to keep someone from repeating the offense.

    Poaching has a long, interesting history with deep roots. Back when few people owned land other than nobles, poaching – even to avoid starvation – could mean death to the poacher. Regardless, it was also a way that the lower classes could “stick it to the man” as a political act (think Robin Hood). This philosophy/tradition has endured through the ages. Many people poach today because their parent(s) poached. It used to be a regular practice to poach federal lands in the US. I don’t know it for a fact, but I would expect most poaching today still takes place on state/federal lands, not neighbors’ private land. They aren’t hurting anyone with a face or name, so what is the crime? It isn’t really much different than tax evasion or similar crimes against government. Death is probably no longer justified, but a little shame and humiliation after guilty convictions can go a long way to reducing the problem and perhaps stopping the ancient tradition.

    • adkDreamer says:

      Three paragraphs of nonsense and rhetoric as usual. Here is a clue: An alleged criminal cares little about the law, the number of or weight of law or of fines or imprisonment. An alleged criminal more than likely considers name publishing even less so. If laws and punishment were so compelling no one would break them, not even an alleged criminal.

      • Boreas says:

        Right back at you, bud. There is no such thing as an “alleged criminal” before an act has been committed, unless we live in an Orwellian novel. Perhaps you meant a ‘potential criminal’? Regardless, given your logic, why bother with laws and their enforcement, as there is no thing as a deterrent. Absurd. What was the last civilization without laws? Is there such a thing?

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *